The Market Ticker
Commentary on The Capital Markets- Category [Editorial]
Logging in or registering will improve your experience here
Main Navigation
MUST-READ Selection(s):
There Can Be NO Compromise On Data

Display list of topics

Sarah's Resources You Should See
Sarah's Blog Buy Sarah's Pictures
Full-Text Search & Archives
Legal Disclaimer

The content on this site is provided without any warranty, express or implied. All opinions expressed on this site are those of the author and may contain errors or omissions.


The author may have a position in any company or security mentioned herein. Actions you undertake as a consequence of any analysis, opinion or advertisement on this site are your sole responsibility.

Market charts, when present, used with permission of TD Ameritrade/ThinkOrSwim Inc. Neither TD Ameritrade or ThinkOrSwim have reviewed, approved or disapproved any content herein.

The Market Ticker content may be sent unmodified to lawmakers via print or electronic means or excerpted online for non-commercial purposes provided full attribution is given and the original article source is linked to. Please contact Karl Denninger for reprint permission in other media, to republish full articles, or for any commercial use (which includes any site where advertising is displayed.)

Submissions or tips on matters of economic or political interest may be sent "over the transom" to The Editor at any time. To be considered for publication your submission must include full and correct contact information and be related to an economic or political matter of the day. All submissions become the property of The Market Ticker.

Considering sending spam? Read this first.

2018-10-18 07:49 by Karl Denninger
in Editorial , 255 references
[Comments enabled]  

Well well look what we have here...


They are not "undocumented workers" or "refugees."

A person who wishes to work or immigrate asks permission before coming and complies with the law.  If told "no" for whatever reason the abide that decision as they recognize reality -- they have no right of entry, they are guests and they are requesting a privilege.

If you do not do that -- if you instead choose to break the law, to demand something you're not entitled to and when refused you take it anyway you're an invader and those invading another nation are subject to being -- and should be -- shot.

And by the way -- the Constitution requires the President to do this (Article 4 Section 4.)  It's not optional and if the President will not do so he must be removed and replaced by whatever means are necessary or we no longer have a Constitutional Republic.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)

2018-10-16 09:36 by Karl Denninger
in Editorial , 175 references
[Comments enabled]  

People like Creepy Porn Layer (yes, that's what I call him because he's not good enough to be called a "lawyer") are dangerous to their clients.

A federal judge in Los Angeles on Monday threw out adult-film actress Stormy Daniel’s defamation lawsuit against President Trump on free-speech grounds.

“The court agrees with Mr. Trump’s argument because the tweet in question constitutes ‘rhetorical hyperbole’ normally associated with politics and public discourse in the U.S.,” U.S. District Judge S. James Otero in Los Angeles said in a ruling Monday, as Bloomberg reported. “The First Amendment protects this type of rhetorical statement.”


“The ruling also states that the President is entitled to an award of his attorneys’ fees against Stormy Daniels,” Trump attorney Charles Harder said in a statement to Fox News. “No amount of spin or commentary by Stormy Daniels or her lawyer, Mr. (Michael) Avenatti, can truthfully characterize today’s ruling in any way other than total victory for President Trump and total defeat for Stormy Daniels.  The amount of the award for President Trump’s attorneys’ fees will be determined at a later date.”

It is very unusual to have fees awarded when you lose a defamation lawsuit.  In fact pretty-much the only way that ever happens is when the judge finds that your complaint was either frivolous or motivated by animus of some sort rather than being a legitimate controversy.

But then again the substance of this alleged "defamation" is rather insane to begin with.  Remember that Daniels' "claim to fame" is that she's a stripper -- that is, she takes her clothes off for money.  Occasionally said people get rather friendly with their customers.  Sometimes money is involved in that too (although in most states that's illegal) but other times its motivated by fame or just plain old-fashioned attraction.  It's not like working intentionally in a sexually-charged atmosphere won't lead to people being aroused -- right?

So here's a warning to all of you "MeeeeowTwo" fakers -- baseless allegations are not free.  If you are actually insane enough to try to sue someone or if you try to ruin them they can come after you, they can go to the courts and you can not only lose but potentially be bankrupted by being forced to pay their costs of defense, even if (and especially if) you hire some sleazebag "layer."

Now where are Judge Moore and Kavanaugh's lawsuits?

It's well past the time when people making false allegations of this sort wind up living under a freeway overpass in a refrigerator box as those they accuse wind up with everything they own and a money judgment for anything they might earn for the rest of their miserable lives.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)

2018-10-16 07:00 by Karl Denninger
in Editorial , 149 references
[Comments enabled]  

You see, women's stories are always credible.

They never lie.

They never smear people, especially people on the right.

A New York woman has been arrested after police say she made up a story claiming to be the victim of a hate crime.

She claimed four teens (boys, I presume) shouted "Trump 2016!" and when she parked slashed her tires and left a note saying "Go home."

The cops determined it never happened and she wrote the note herself.

Careful what you wish for folks..... it only takes one of these incidents that goes real bad and you're going to wish you never made any of these false allegations.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)

2018-10-15 07:00 by Karl Denninger
in Editorial , 136 references
[Comments enabled]  

In my opinion we're well past the point where we should be putting up with the jackasses in the Middle East waving their oil wells around like giant penises that are theirs to use to **** anyone up the ass they wish.

Without a market for said oil Mr. Crown Prince will be riding a camel.  Should the US decide it's had enough of KSAs bull**** and give the Saudis 24 hours to move all American-sold arms to a safe place before we will blow them up wherever they are the so-called "great Saudi military power" will turn into a ball of Saharan sand.

We should have told the Saudis to go **** themselves and leveled a full embargo on them after 9/11.  After all the vast majority of the hijackers were Saudi nationals -- that's not supposition or rumor, it's fact.  Then there's the fact that the evil ********** Bush (then President) let several flights leave full of Saudis after 9/11 when our airspace was locked down.  Who were they and why?  We've never had that disclosed and we have a right to know.

It is a fact that Saudi Arabia has spread its Salafist bull**** through the Middle East and we've not only tolerated it we've called them "friends."  Well, with friends that kill 3,000 of your citizens may I ask who the hell is supposed to be our enemy?

If, as it appears, they murdered a journalist because he said things the Crown Prince didn't like then I suppose said Crown Prince has declared that if you don't like what someone says you can murder them.  Those aren't my standards, they are theirs.

Well now, perhaps a bounty is in order, since murder is now considered acceptable to the Saudi Crown.

The King (and his crown princes) must live under his own law or there is no law at all.  If it's acceptable for Saudi's Crown Prince to order up murders then it's also acceptable for others to order up his murder.

Since no nation can call itself civilized if it subscribes to that crap the solution is obvious: They're not civilized and thus they have no right to expect any sort of trade at all, nor any ability to travel here, nor to own anything in or made by this nation -- including our funds, Treasuries and land.

Yes, we should be able to prove it first, of course.  Then again maybe the standard of proof could be similar to that the Saudis employ when it comes to how they view gays.

In fact I think using their standards ought to suit them just fine -- right?

However, just to make sure they know we're serious, let's pass NOPEC right ****ing now After all 15 USC Chapter 1 is the law in our land, and just like KSA thinks they can have their laws no matter the consequences, even if it means their "monarchy" can murder people, well, that sauce works on the goose as well -- so let's cook theirs right now.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)

2018-10-14 07:00 by Karl Denninger
in Editorial , 240 references
[Comments enabled]  

There's been plenty of discussion over whether services such as Apple's iTunes, Google Play, Facebook, Twitter and similar can ban users on a purely-discretionary basis.

The common argument is that because they are private companies they can create whatever policies they'd like so long as they do not violate existing civil rights law (e.g. you can't ban someone because they're black.)

But this isn't merely about services such as Facebook, Twitter and similar -- now the ability of content creators to monetize their work is at stake. As of the 21st of September  Infowars has been notified that Paypal is refusing to process payments for subscriptions as well as merchandise.

If you remember in 2017 the notorious neo-Nazi web site Daily Stormer was basically run off the Internet -- first by GoDaddy and then in rapid sequence multiple other firms, including Google.  They were denied the ability to buy DNS and hosting service as they were effectively black-balled by dozens of providers of these basic utility-class services more or less "all at once."

More recently Microsoft threatened with loss of their cloud computing provider, Microsoft's Azure, unless they made changes to their operations.  Microsoft was and remains unwilling to provide a specific list of changes they required or specifics of any alleged violations of their terms of service.

The premise that a private company can refuse service (or sales) to anyone is a fundamental part of Capitalism; the theory is that if one retailer does not wish to do business with you then another will.  But these campaigns of harassment are far more sinister and troubling because they now encompass the utility services that underlie the Internet's infrastructure.

This must not be allowed to stand.

Here's an example.  A hypothetical neo-Nazi wishes to buy a domain and purchase web services to air his views.   However repugnant the right to hold those views and express them is protected by the First Amendment.

Do businesses involved in selling Internet utility services have the right to refuse to sell to him?

To put your views on the Internet you need several different services, not just one.

1. A circuit or means of delivery and interchange with other users on the Internet.  Your cellphone or cable modem is an example of the "end connection" in this regard; in the publisher category this is either an ISP or some sort of a cloud provider.  This circuit is not just a line; in some way you have to connect to an interchange point, much like a phone on a physical wire is useless unless it connects to a switch so you can call other people.

2. A DNS or "nameserver" service.  This is what turns "" into an IP address in the format "" or, in the IPv6 vernacular, "2501:......".  This is an essential service for the modern web because it is not only commonplace it is virtually always true on shared hosting or services of any sort that multiple names are bound to one IP address.  For example "" and "" may both point to the same numerical IP address; the server determines which request goes where by the presentation of the domain name.

3. A computer (server), either a physical device or a virtual piece of a larger physical computer.  These days most small and moderate sites are run on virtualizations, not physical machines -- it's much less expensive and most small and moderate-sized sites simply don't need the entire power of a modern computer, so spreading it among other clients makes it less expensive for everyone.

4. The software that takes the message(s) you provide and formats and delivers them to others.  In the web world this is often Apache (a freely available piece of code) although not always by any means -- there are many other packages, some free and some commercial, that perform this function.  In addition there are services that perform this function in other ways (which are software packaged up with a "brand") such as Facebook and Twitter.

The question before us today is where is the line between a company able to refuse service to anyone and not?

I think we can agree that the neo-Nazi cannot be refused electrical service at his house.  Nor can he be refused water, sewer and trash pickup.  He also cannot be refused access to a toll road or bridge, even if privately run, so long as he pays the tolls like everyone else.

But he can be refused seating in a local restaurant.

What's the distinction?

Simple: The neo-Nazi's views are not implicitly endorsed by the establishment in the case of electrical, sewer and toll road service.

It is instantly obvious to an observer that the neo-Nazi's words on Facebook are in fact associated with the company Facebook.  Ditto for those on Twitter. But it isn't obvious to the public that the neo-Nazi bought his DNS or Web Service from GoDaddy or Amazon.  If one was curious you would have to dig for the information.  Even so these providers bear little risk of being co-branded with that neo-Nazi.

As such we should draw through regulation and law some simple bright-line tests.

Facebook can ban whoever it wants, for whatever reason.  So can Twitter.

GoDaddy, however, cannot ban a user from DNS registration no matter the purpose so long their site is legal.  Ditto for Amazon's AWS, Microsoft's Azure or any other cloud or hosting provider. Nor may providers refuse traffic interchange based on the viewpoints contained in their, or their customers, communications.

Twitter, in short, may ban anyone it wishes.  However, should they do so to any material degree there will be created an opportunity for a new Twitter, and anyone may start a competing service with essentially the same feature set.

What do we do with utility services that handle the flow of funds?

Traditional banks or fintech outfits such as PayPal  must not be allowed to discriminate against customers simply because they don't like their political views. Banking and monetary exchange is inherently a utility service and to deny same to any US Citizen as a consequence of their views is to attempt to "starve" a citizen for exercising their constitutionally-protected rights.

Thus the recent PayPal ban of Alex Jones must not stand, Master Card must not be able to ban Robert Spencer and neither can the decision of the bank that recently said "no" to a Florida candidate who supports the legalization of cannabis.  All of these are issue positions used to deny utility services.

We would not allow Florida Power and Light to cut off Nikki Fried's electricity because she supports the legalization of marijuana.  We must not also allow banks and modern utilities such as ISPs, domain providers and similar to effectively destroy people and political speech because they don't like the message, even though it's lawful.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)